Wednesday, December 2, 2009

The Basis For The HADSST Discontinuity/Blip Corrections?

############THE CREATION OF A NEW MINI HOCKEY STICK?Emails from Phil Jones reveal that, in the new HADSST3 dataset, the dip and rebound from 1945 to 1955 will be biased upwards. See Figure 1. I’ve highlighted the period of 1945 to 1955. The clarification was made in an email from Phil Jones to Tom Wigley dated September 28, 2009. Jones wrote, in part: “Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, but the adjustments won't reduce the 1940s blip but enhance it. It won't change the 1940-44 period, just raise the 10 years after Aug 45.” Refer to:http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1017&filename=1254147614.txthttp://i45.tinypic.com/10xfwgg.png
Figure 1

From: Phil Jones p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: Gil Compo compo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Twentieth Century Reanalysis preliminary version 2 data - One other thing!
Date: Tue Nov 10 12:40:26 2009
Gil,
One other good plot to do is this. Plot land minus ocean. as a time series.
This should stay relatively close until the 1970s. Then the land should start moving away
from the ocean.
This departure is part of AGW. The rest is in your Co2 increases.
Cheers
Phil

############

The difference between global land and ocean for the existing datasets (CRUTEM3 and HADSST2) is illustrated in Figure 2. I hope there were more reasons to update the SST data than to create a 0.08 deg C hockey stick. Personally, I was hoping they were going to clean up the ENSO related SST data before 1950.http://i50.tinypic.com/2e3n87o.png
Figure 2

29 comments:

Anonymous
said...

Bob,

What is your beef (hockey stick accusations) about the increased difference (0.08C) between the air and ocean SST shown in the 1970-present time period?

The air has warmed more in this period than the oceans have. The RSS and UAH satellite data confirms (or essentially matches) the magnitude of the air temperature rise observed in the CRU data set:http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1850/offset:0.39/mean:37/plot/gistemp/from:1850/offset:0.3/mean:37/plot/uah/from:1970/offset:0.54/mean:37/plot/rss/from:1970/offset:0.54/mean:37

Your own SST chart shows that the ocean SST didn't rise as much (about 0.08C less) during that 39 year period:http://i42.tinypic.com/iom6ab.jpg

Bob: "I hope there were more reasons to update the SST data than to create a 0.08 deg C hockey stick."

Bob: "I was just pointing out the obvious."

"Pointing out the obvious" by placing that rather inflammatory message of "THE CREATION OF A NEW MINI HOCKEY STICK" in your sub-title seems rather accusatory to me. The data is the data and I find it very self-serving and disingenuous to even suggest (in your title nonetheless) that the authors were trying to "create" this specific data feature in their graph.

Are you simply trying to fire-up your fellow anti-AGW believers into some sort of rallying attempt by placing some inflammatory messages on your blog site Bob? "Pointing out the obvious" must have been just too boring of a message (even though it is a more accurate statement) to put in your title.

Dennis: You're misquoting. If you hadn't noticed there's a question mark at the end of "THE CREATION OF A NEW MINI HOCKEY STICK?" It's tough to miss it.

And a hockey stick is exactly what Jones is describing with "One other good plot to do is this. Plot land minus ocean. as a time series. This should stay relatively close until the 1970s. Then the land should start moving away from the ocean. This departure is part of AGW. The rest is in your Co2 increases."

The handle of the hickey stick is created by the "This should stay relatively close until the 1970s," and the blade is formed by Jones's "Then the land should start moving away from the ocean."

OOOH I left out the question mark. How dare me leave that out of the direct quote. Another perfect example of the typical non important side-track issues you bring up in order to distract from the main points of our discussion.

Your sub-title is still very accusatory with or without the question mark.

The 31-year satellite data shows the same temperature increase and relative SST difference of 0.08C. Jones has no responsibility or oversight for that satellite data. That is how you should really be "pointing out the obvious" in the data set by making that same data comparison. But then why should you be fair about that because he is the enemy and you need to take him down no matter how much the actual data he has no control of says otherwise.

This latest post of yours is much ado about nothing and is just another "Blame it all on Jones" battle cry you and your fellow believers are currently having fun with. Such political folly.

Are you telling me that the HADISST data that you used in this chart to compare with NINO3.4 data:http://i42.tinypic.com/iom6ab.jpg

is not really valid here and that you should really have used HADSST2 data instead? Is it because the HADSST2 would not have correlated as well with the rising NINO3.4 data?

See the problem is the HADISST data that you use to to make your earlier point with NINO3.4 shows the difference of 0.08C compared to the RSS, UAH, CRU, and GISS data, but then you now come up with this whole other SST data set to completely make another point showing a negative slope.

Seems like a devious and underhanded interchanging of the data sets depending on what type of argument you want to make. Pretty much what you and your followers are accusing Phil Jones of. Oh the irony of it all!

Dennis: This post is about the HADSST3 dataset that is to replace the HADSST2 data. It is not about the HADISST data.

FYI: I use HADISST data for many of my posts because it is presented in 1 deg latitude and longitude grids, where the HADSST2 is in 5 deg grids. Also, there are numerous gaps in the HADSST2 data for the NINO3.4 region during the 1940s, some as long as a year. Refer to the graph here:http://i47.tinypic.com/21aweqe.pngAnd the table here:http://i50.tinypic.com/2ufsfbo.jpgBoth are from a post about the HADSST2 data that I haven't gotten around to finishing.

And Dennis, another reason I use HADISST data regularly. The HADSST2 data has a step change in 1997/98 because the Hadley Centre merged two incompatible datasets. I discussed it here:http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/12/step-change-in-hadsst-data-after-199798.html

Here's another illustration to show the step change. It's HADSST2 MINUS HADISST:http://i48.tinypic.com/2uzb3ir.png

Yet you seem to portray yourself here as somehow having this tremendous clairvoyant "all-knowing" ability to know exactly what Phil Jones (or anyone else) is actually thinking or what their motives are when they presents their data analyses and conclusions.

Let me get this straight, you are telling me that despite that obvious step increase problem in the SST2 data, you use it anyway just to make your last point to me by showing the resulting negative slope in the comparative data sets?

Seems to me that a little data manipulation and the need to the spread some misinformation is at play here too.

Dennis: You wrote, "Let me get this straight, you are telling me that despite that obvious step increase problem in the SST2 data, you use it anyway just to make your last point to me by showing the resulting negative slope in the comparative data sets?"

As noted above, the reason I used HADSST2 in the example was because this post is about the replacement for HADSST2, not about a replacement for HADISST. HADCRUT3 is the combination of HADSST2 and CRUTEM3.

Thanks, Bill. It looks like they also pulled down the step change in 1997/98 a little. Refer to:http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/12/step-change-in-hadsst-data-after-199798.html

The 1945 to 1955 correction should also bring them more into line with the ERSST.v2 and ERSST.v3b.

As soon as it's released I'll ask Geert Jan to add it to the KNMI Climate Explorer. There are a number of other things I want to check, like did they clean up ENSO at all before the 1950s? If you wiggle match NINO3.4 and Global SST anomalies from 1910 to 1950, there are rises and falls in the global SST anomalies but no ENSO events to match them.

Bob,I like your link between La Nina and SATO raising OHC. But I think there is a link to solar cycle too. 2000 La Nina happened during solar maxima, 2007 La Nina hapenned during solar minima. The diffeence is there for previous La Ninas too. I'm not so skilled to investigate myself. What do you think about that idea? Is it worth to add to you charts TSI? -Jiri

Jiri: The link between solar and SST is difficult to illustrate. Simply scaling monthly sunspot numbers misses the fact that the cloud cover over the tropical Pacific allows more downward shortwave radiation to enter the ocean during La Nina events.

One of the reasons for the 1944 blip is because it mainly comes from the Southern Hemisphere. We always look at the global temperature and forget to look at the hemispheres separately (Bob excluded of course since he always takes a regional scan).

The Southern Hemisphere has much, much more variability than the Northern (this could be error or lack of coverage but it is still there nonetheless).

I'm not sure that you've got my point. Cloud cover modulates energy entering the ocean during La Nina. But the amount of energy is also modulated by the solar cycle. There was solar maximum in 2000 and hence extraordinary jump in OHC during 2000 La Nina. During 2007 La Nina there was solar minimum and there is no rise in OHC.It is possible that there is going to be La Nina in 2010 or 2011. As long as solar cycle is weak the response to OHC should be weak to. I'm planning to investigate past ENSO, but it takes me a long time as I'm just learning how to find all required information.I think that your ENSO connection to SST jumps was a good idea. But, the OHC and insolation is what really matters for climate. I can see SST good only to generate clouds and modulate insolation.

REMEMBER THAT CO2 STARTED GROWING IN LATE 1700.That is just history:Industrial Revolution.It began in:- England: 1780s- West Europe: 1830s- East Europe/Soviet Russia: 1930s- China/India: 1980s

AGW began 200 YEARS AGO.NOT just IN THE 1970s.

But it was masked by sulfate aerosols.

Apparently, that masking("global dimming") dwindled between 1920s and 1940s(maybe Soviets dump there more BC than sulfate? Anyone knows the sulfur fraction of Soviet coal mines?)

The post WII industrial boom released a lot of sulfate aerosols, and global cooling followed(1950-1970s)

Then in late 1970s the Northern hemisphere sulfate emissions stabilized in thanks to West Europe Regulations.

And in 1990s this was enhanced by USSR collapse: less sulfate thanks to new post-soviet power plant regulations and the collapse of Collectivized Agriculture(Kolchozes were abolished and agricultural practices get back to the prehistoric method of spring burning to clean the fields from grass) releasing a lot of more BC.

So remember the effect of GLOBAL DIMMING!

SULFATE: coolingBC(BLACK CARBON): warming

This is simple explanation why global warming become evident only after the 1970s.

Anonymous 12:59PM: You concluded your remarks about sulfates and black carbon with, "This is simple explanation why global warming become evident only after the 1970s."

But you didn't explain the warming from the 1910s and 1940s. You wrote, "Apparently, that masking('global dimming') dwindled between 1920s and 1940s(maybe Soviets dump there more BC than sulfate? Anyone knows the sulfur fraction of Soviet coal mines?)" That was conjecture.

The aerosol/black carbon hypothesis also does not work with Ocean Heat Content. The rises in it coincide with ENSO events.http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/09/enso-dominates-nodc-ocean-heat-content.html

This is why attempts to model and project the rise in OHC are such an utter failure. Hansen et al (2005) assumed that aerosols and greenhouse gases are what caused the rise in OHC. http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/10/nodc-corrections-to-ocean-heat-content.htmlLink to Hansen et al (2005):http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Hansen_etal_1.pdfLink to Pielke Sr.'s discussion of Hansen projections:http://climatesci.org/2009/02/09/update-on-a-comparison-of-upper-ocean-heat-content-changes-with-the-giss-model-predictions/

The anomalous rise in OHC that occurred in 1995 happened at the solar minimum between SS#22 and SS#23. The biggest factor in that rise was the strengthening of the trade winds above normal levels for the size of the La Nina. Refer to discussion under the heading of IS THERE EVIDENCE OF AN IMPACT OF ANTHROPOGENIC GREENHOUSE GASES ON THE RECHARGE MODE OF ENSO?http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/11/more-detail-on-multiyear-aftereffects_26.html

Bob, yes the 1910-1940 warming followed by slight cooling in 1950-1970 is odd.

And I admit that my hipothesis is only a guess.

But remeber that CO2 levels are at the highest levels in 2 MILLION YEARS!

The Big question will be:If we shattered 600 000 years of Co2 under 280 ppm as early as mid-1800s, why record temperatures started only from the 1980s?

And the sulfate negative forcing seems the only possible answer.

And remember: the emissions of sulfate droped drastically in late 1970s and 1990s, and guess what happened?

Global warming became evident only after that!

The 1910s-1970s warming-cooling is within the range of natural variability(so your ENSO hypothesis seems a good one),BUT THE WARMING AFTER THE 1970s IS NOT, they break 2000 years of temperature records from paleo-climate data!

Anonymous 5:45PM: You wrote, "The 1910s-1970s warming-cooling is within the range of natural variability(so your ENSO hypothesis seems a good one),BUT THE WARMING AFTER THE 1970s IS NOT, they break 2000 years of temperature records from paleo-climate data!"

My representations of the multiyear effects of ENSO start in 1975 or 1981, so your statement is incorrect. Also you assume that whatever paleoclimatological data you're referring to agrees with other reconstructions. Refer to the shorter-term reconstructions here that show higher SST anomalies in the past:http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/07/sst-reconstructions.html

Comment Policy, SST Posts, and Notes

Comments that are political in nature or that have nothing to do with the post will be deleted.####The Smith and Reynolds SST Posts DOES NOT LIST ALL SST POSTS. I stopped using ERSST.v2 data for SST when NOAA deleted it from NOMADS early in 2009.

Please use the search feature in the upper left-hand corner of the page for posts on specific subjects.####NOTE: I’ve discovered that some of the links to older posts provide blank pages. While it’s possible to access that post by scrolling through the history, that’s time consuming. There’s a quick fix for the problem, so if you run into an absent post, please advise me. Thanks.####If you use the graphs, please cite or link to the address of the blog post or this website.